IJEC (2017) 49:73–94

DOI 10.1007/s13158-017-0185-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early

Childhood: Contributions of Early Parenting and Self-
Regulation

Kate E. Williams1 • Donna Berthelsen1

Published online: 7 March 2017

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Abstract This research considers the role of parenting practices and early self-
regulation, on children’s prosocial behaviour when they begin school. Data for 4007
children were drawn from Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of
Australian Children (LSAC). The analyses explored relations between self-reported
parenting practices for mothers and fathers, using scales for parenting warmth and
hostility, and parent report on children’s emotional and attentional regulation at
2–3 years. Teacher reports for prosocial behaviour were obtained when children
were 6–7 years. Maternal and paternal non-hostile parenting and warmth made
significant, indirect contributions to later prosocial development, through influ-
encing children’s early self-regulation. These findings inform understandings about
the intergenerational pathways through which children’s self-regulation influences
prosocial skills. Responsive caregiving by parents, and by adults in early childhood
education programs, supports the development of early self-regulation. This, in turn,
enables children to take greater advantage of the learning opportunities afforded to
them at home and in early childhood education programs. Support for early self-
regulation can offset effects of child and family risk factors on children’s later
development.

Keywords Early childhood
Self-regulation
Responsive parenting
Mothers

Fathers
Prosocial behaviour

& Kate E. Williams

k15.williams@qut.edu.au
Donna Berthelsen
d.berthelsen@qut.edu.au
1
School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road,
Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia

123
74 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

Résumé Cette recherche examine le rôle des pratiques parentales et l’au-

torégulation en bas âge, sur le comportement prosocial des enfants lorsqu’ils
commencent l’école. Les données pour 4007 enfants ont été tirées de Growing
Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC).
(Grandir en Australie : L’Étude longitudinale des enfants australiens). Les
analyses explorent les relations entre les pratiques parentales auto rapportées par
les mères et les pères, à l’aide d’échelles sur la chaleur et l’hostilité parentales, et
la régulation émotionnelle et attentionnelle des enfants à 2–3 ans, rapportée par
le parent. Les rapports de l’enseignant sur le comportement prosocial ont été
obtenus lorsque les enfants avaient 6–7 ans. Le parentage maternel et paternel
non-hostile et chaleureux contribue significativement, indirectement au déve-
loppement prosocial futur, en influençant l’autorégulation chez les jeunes
enfants. Ces résultats éclairent la compréhension des pistes intergénérationnelles
à travers lesquelles l’autorégulation des enfants influe sur les habiletés proso-
ciales. Des soins attentionnés prodigués par les parents, et par les adultes en
éducation de la petite enfance, soutiennent le développement de l’autorégulation
en bas âge. Ceci, à son tour, permet aux enfants de profiter davantage des
possibilités d’apprentissage qui leur sont offertes à la maison et dans les pro-
grammes d’éducation de la petite enfance. Le soutien à l’autorégulation en bas
âge peut compenser les effets des facteurs de risque familiaux sur le dévelop-
pement ultérieur de l’enfant.

Resumen Esta investigación considera el rol de las prácticas de crianza y la auto

regulación temprana en el comportamiento pro-social de los niños cuando
comienzan la escuela. Los datos de 4.007 niños fueron extraı́dos de Creciendo en
Australia: El Estudio Longitudinal de Niños Australianos (LSAC, por sus siglas
en inglés). El análisis exploró las relaciones entre prácticas auto-reportadas de
madres y padres, utilizando escalas de crianza de calidez y hostilidad, y reportes
de los padres sobre la regulación emocional y atencional de los niños a los 2–3
años. Los reportes sobre comportamientos pro-sociales de los maestros fueron
obtenidos cuando los niños tenı́an 6–7 años. La crianza maternal y paternal no
hostil y cálida fue significante, con contribuciones indirectas al desarrollo tardı́o
pro-social a través de la influencia en la auto regulación temprana de los niños y
niñas. Estos hallazgos informaron entendimientos acerca de los caminos inter
generacionales a través de los cuales la auto regulación de los niños influenció
aptitudes pro-sociales. El cuidado sensible de padres y adultos en los centros de
educación temprana apoya el desarrollo de la auto regulación temprana. Esto, a
su vez, permite a los niños tomar mayores ventajas de las oportunidades de
aprendizaje entregadas a ellos en el hogar y en programas de educación temprana
para niños. Apoyar la auto regulación temprana puede compensar los efectos de
los factores de riesgo de los niños y sus familias en el desarrollo posterior de
niños y niñas.

123
The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood… 75

Introduction

The publication of From Neurons to Neighborhoods (National Research Council

and Institute of Medicine 2000) foreshadowed a drive towards a single, integrated
science of early childhood development and emphasised important scientific issues
that included: both biology and context are important in early childhood
development; growth of self-regulation is a cornerstone of early childhood
development across domains of behaviour; and relationships are the building
blocks of human development (Lombardi 2012). The now multidisciplinary science
of human development which includes the neurosciences, developmental psychol-
ogy, sociology, and economics has provided a paradigm shift for understanding
ways to enrich the life prospects for children (Shonkoff and Bales 2011). The
processes of development can now be understood as ‘nature dancing with nurture
over time’, through interactions between biology and the social and physical
environments (Shonkoff et al. 2012, p. 3). This study considers the role of
environmental and neurobiological factors on the development of prosocial
behaviour.
Children’s early self-regulation is a neurobiological process supported by
caregiving that is consistently sensitive and responsive. Self-regulation of emotions
and attention enables children to learn more easily through their social, emotional,
and cognitive experiences (Sameroff 2010). Brain architecture, constructed through
an ongoing process that begins before birth, is influenced by children’s relationships
and engagement with adults. The nature of the relationships and interactional
processes for each child provides a foundation, sturdy or fragile, for the child’s
capabilities that follow (Shonkoff and Bales 2011). While a wide range of
moderating and mediating factors may contribute to children’s development of
prosocial behaviours over time, these analyses address the contributions of early
parenting and children’s self-regulation.
Prosocial behaviour can be described as ‘voluntary behaviour intended to benefit
another’ (Eisenberg et al. 2006, p. 646). Prosocial behaviours include comforting
others, providing emotional support, sharing resources, and providing instrumental
help to enable others to reach their goals. Children, as young as 18 months, can
demonstrate helping and sharing and engage in efforts to comfort someone who
seems distressed (Brownell et al. 2009). Developing the ability to voluntarily share
valued resources with others is likely to require skills in picking up on explicit cues
that the other person provides to communicate their needs or desires. This requires
the child’s recognition of, and attention to, those cues, implicating the role of
attentional regulation. When young children have had experiences in which there is
sensitivity and responsiveness to their needs from parents and other caregivers, then
the development of such self-regulation is supported.

Self-Regulation and Prosocial Development

Self-regulation is an umbrella term that encompasses a number of interrelated

processes. In this study we focus on emotional and attentional regulation as early

123
76 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

foundational aspects of self-regulation (Blair and Diamond 2008). Emotional

regulation can be defined as the capacity to manage and modulate emotional states
that facilitates adaptive functioning (Raver 2002). Attentional regulation is the
control exercised by the child to sustain attention for extended periods as well as the
ability to switch attention when required within a specific situation (Blair 2002).
Emotional and attentional regulation have a neurobiological basis, as identified in
early temperament research (Rothbart et al. 2011) and later brain imaging research
(Posner et al. 2014). Studies of brain functioning demonstrate large changes in the
physical connections between brain areas that support the development of emotional
and attentional regulation through infancy to age 4 years that are influenced by
caregiving practices (Posner et al. 2014). A hierarchical process of brain function
development is implicated, with the initial brain stem functioning crucial in very
early life (Geva and Feldman 2008), maturation of the collicular-basal ganglia,
posterior attention systems, hypothalamus and thalamus from 3 months of age, and
still later prefrontal cortex maturation which is involved in the development of
higher-order cognitive control abilities (Blair 2002).
Attentional and emotional regulation appear to be reciprocally related from an
early age (Williams et al. 2017). Emotional regulation skills support children to
return to calm following emotional distress, thus allowing more time and resources
for maintaining attention on other aspects of the environment. In turn, the ability to
maintain attention on social and environmental cues may support children in
learning emotional regulation skills, and in benefiting from the co-regulation
strategies employed by adults. It is important for children to learn to use and
integrate their regulatory skills across the early childhood period.
Children with stronger self-regulatory abilities are likely to have greater capacity
to respond in prosocial ways to others. Laible et al. (2014) found that children, aged
4 years, with higher attentional regulation and less emotional reactivity (suggestive
of higher levels of emotional regulation) were rated as more prosocial by teachers in
the early years of school in comparison to children with low attentional regulation
and high emotional reactivity. In one intervention study, prosocial behaviours
towards peers were enhanced when children aged 2–3 years were encouraged to talk
about their feelings and to build their knowledge about emotion (Grazzani et al.
2016). Taken together, these findings suggest that improving emotional and
attentional regulation in young children may be one mechanism for promoting
increased prosocial behaviour.

Parenting, Self-Regulation, and Prosocial Development

A major developmental task over the first three years of life is for children to learn
to regulate their own behaviour, emotion, and cognitive states through support from
parents and other caregivers. While there are genetic variations, these are not
determinants of behaviour because the expression of such biological variations is
influenced by environmental experiences, such as the quality of interactions with
caregivers (Posner et al. 2014). Responsive parenting defined by affective elements
influences self-regulation and subsequent behaviour, such as prosocial skills.

123
The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood… 77

In infancy, caregivers provide support for children’s emotional and attentional

regulation. This is done by soothing the child, including by holding and rocking, or
by orienting and redirecting attention to manage infants’ distress in any situation.
By such actions, caregivers support children to manage emotions. These practices in
the care of young children will be expressed differently across cultures (Rothbart
et al. 2011). These external supports that caregivers provide to soothe and calm
children act to co-regulate children and thus support development of self-regulation
over time (Posner et al. 2014). However, when caregiving is not responsive and not
attuned to children’s needs then they are less likely to learn to manage their
emotions. Parenting that is overly directive and critical may evoke frequent negative
affect and physiological stress responses from children (from the HPA axis),
straining children’s capacity to practice and develop emotional regulation skills
(Blair and Diamond 2008). Thus, responsive relationships shape children’s learning
in ways that support longer-term development (Kochanska et al. 2008, 2009, 2015;
Landry et al. 2006).
Morris et al. (2007) proposed that the link between parenting and children’s
emotional regulation capabilities has three components. First, children learn about
emotional regulation through observational learning, modelling, and social refer-
encing with the caregiver. Second, parenting behaviours related to emotion have a
very strong and direct impact on children through those learning processes. Third,
children’s emotional regulation is affected by the nature of the family emotional
environment through the specific parenting practices and each family’s own
emotional expressiveness.
Maternal sensitivity and responsiveness has been a particular focus in the
research examining parenting, self-regulation, and children’s prosocial develop-
ment. Taylor et al. (2013, 2015) reported that physiological regulation and observed
responsive and authoritative parenting at 3 years predicted children’s effortful
control (related to self-regulation), at 4 years as well as children’s expressed
sympathy for others at 6 and 7 years. Razza and Raymond (2013) reported that
maternal sensitivity across the first three years predicted children’s delay of
gratification skills (related to self-regulation) at 54 months which, in turn, was
associated with children’s socialisation skills. In another recent cross-sectional
study with children at 4–5 years of age, lower levels of critical and directive
parenting were associated with emotional and attentional regulation in children, but
parental warmth and sensitivity were not related (Mathis and Bierman 2015). Taken
together, it is still unclear as to whether a high level of warmth or the absence of
critical parenting is most important for children’s self-regulatory behaviour.
Very few studies have investigated fathers’ contribution to children’s self-
regulation and later prosocial behaviours, with mixed findings to date. Studies have
variously reported that paternal behaviours are more (Ferreira et al. 2016) or as
important as maternal behaviours (Meuwissen and Englund 2016), that parenting by
fathers matters most in the context of relatively low supportive behaviour in mothers
(Martin et al. 2010), and that father behaviours have relatively little influence on
children’s social-emotional and cognitive development when compared to the same
maternal behaviours (Baptista et al. 2016). Others still point to the importance of the
interaction between maternal and paternal behaviours for children’s emotional

123
78 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

socialisation and self-regulation development, rather than consideration of each in

isolation (Han et al. 2015). While many of these differences in findings are likely
due to disparities in research design, measures, and populations, overall it is clear
that further research that includes both mothers and fathers would be beneficial for
understanding pathways of prosocial development.
It is possible that parenting influences on prosociality and self-regulation
development may differ by gender. This is because of the potential, but contested,
differences in the way fathers and mothers interact with their boys and girls and vice
versa. For example, mothers have been found to use more emotional language with
children, with fathers using more language explaining cognitions (LaBounty et al.
2008). However, a more recent study found no differences in amount of emotional
language use with children between mothers and fathers, but both were found to use
more emotional language with boys than with girls (Roger et al. 2012). In the same
study boys were found to use more emotional language with their mothers compared
to their fathers. It is clear that further research that involves both mothers and fathers
and explores differential processes by child gender are warranted.

The Current Study

Children’s early experiences within the family environment and children’s self-
regulatory skills may predispose children to exhibit greater (or less) concern for
others. The aim of the current study was to advance understanding about the
association between early parenting and children’s self-regulation skills and the
development of children’s prosocial behaviours at school entry. While there is
research that has considered the direct associations between parenting and prosocial
behaviour and between self-regulation and prosocial behaviour, there has been
limited research that has explored developmental pathways that include direct and
indirect associations among parenting, self-regulation, and prosocial skills for
children.
The research questions addressed in the current study are:
1. Are there direct associations between parenting behaviours (warmth and
hostility) for mothers and fathers when children are 2–3 years of age and
children’s prosocial behaviours at 6–7 years?
2. Are there direct associations between self-regulation (emotional and attentional
regulation) at 2–3 years of age and children’s prosocial behaviours at
6–7 years?
3. Are there indirect associations between early parenting behaviours of mothers
and fathers (warmth and hostility) at 2–3 years and children’s prosocial
behaviour at 6–7 years, through children’s self-regulation at 2–3 years?
4. Do the developmental pathways involving early parenting behaviours of
mothers and fathers, children’s self-regulation skills, and later prosocial skills,
differ for boys and girls?

This research contributes new understandings about associations between early

parenting behaviours and prosocial behaviour when children begin school and

123
The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood… 79

explores how children’s early self-regulation is implicated in those associations. An

important contribution of this research is to include mothers’ and fathers’ reports
about their parenting that provide additional information about the family context in
which children’s experiences are embedded.

Methodology

The analyses reported in this study use data from Growing Up in Australia: The
Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). This study is sponsored by the
Australian Government through the Department of Social Services and warehoused
at the Australian Institute of Family Studies (http://www.growingupinaustralia.gov.
au). Two cohorts of children and their families were recruited for the LSAC study in
2004 (Edwards 2012). The analyses presented in this paper utilise data drawn from
the Baby Cohort that comprised 5107 children (aged 3–19 months at recruitment).
At each biennial data collection, parents and teachers complete questionnaires,
computer-assisted interviews are undertaken with parents and children and devel-
opmental assessments with children are completed by research officers undertaking
home visits. Further detail on LSAC study design, sample information, and
implementation is reported in a range of sources (Edwards 2012; Gray and Smart
2009; Soloff et al. 2005). The current analyses use data from Wave 2 when children
were 2–3 years old and Wave 4 when children were aged 6–7 years.

Participants

The sampling unit for LSAC is the study child and children were identified through
the use of the Medicare Australia (health insurance) database (Soloff et al. 2005). A
two-stage clustered sampling design was used to obtain a nationally representative
sample of Australian children. At the first stage, 311 postcodes were randomly
selected from all Australian postcodes. At the second stage, using the national health
insurance database, children within families, meeting relevant age criteria were
randomly selected from the identified postcodes. The two LSAC cohorts are broadly
representative of the Australian population (Soloff et al. 2005).
LSAC data on various constructs, including parenting behaviour, were collected
from both mothers and fathers when possible. The terms, mother and father, are
used to denote the adult figures who identified themselves as the primary carers for
the child in the LSAC study. In 99.8% of cases these were the biological or adoptive
parents with remaining .2% being grandparents, foster parents, or aunts/uncles. We
selected an analytic sample by examining the availability of mother and father data
across Wave 1 (infancy) and Wave 2 (child—2–3 years). Although we do not use
Wave 1 parenting data in the substantive analysis, Wave 1 data were used in the
imputation model to estimate values for missing data. Cases were removed if: there
were missing data for both mothers and fathers across waves (n = 8); there was
father data for at least one wave but no maternal data at either wave (n = 16); there
was mother data for at least one wave but no father data at either wave (n = 1076).

123
80 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

This resulted in a final sample for these analyses of 4007 families. A comparison by
demographic characteristics was made between included and excluded cases
(Table 1). It was found that cases included were less likely to be indigenous or
speak a language other than English at home. Mothers in the analytic sample were
also significantly older than those not included. Included families also had a higher
average socio-economic position score than those not included. These differences in
the analytic sample and the excluded sample mean that findings are not
generalisable at the population level.

Measures

Self-Regulation

When children were 2–3 years of age, the primary parent completed a number of
measures related to children’s self-regulation skills. The primary parent was the
parent who self-identified as the parent who knew the child best and for 98% of
families this was the mother. Based on our prior work and that of others (Gialamas
et al. 2014; Williams et al. 2016), six items were selected that rated emotional
regulation and six items that rated attentional regulation. Items details are provided
in Table 2.

Emotional Regulation Four items from the Short Temperament Scale (STS;
Fullard et al. 1984) and two items from the Brief Infant Toddler Social-Emotional
Assessment (BITSEA; Briggs-Gowan et al. 2004) were used to represent emotional
regulation. Example items include: ‘child cries or tantrums until he/she is
exhausted’ and ‘child responds to frustration intensely’. Parents responded on a
6-point scale (almost never to almost always) for the STS items, and a 3-point scale
(not true/rarely to very true/often) for the BITSEA items. Items were reversed
scored so that higher scores indicated better emotional regulation. Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess whether the data supported a measurement
model for a single latent variable for emotional regulation with the items designated
as categorical given the response scales had a maximum of six points. The CFA
measurement model fitted the data adequately (RMSEA = .06; CFI = .99). Table 2
provides the factor loadings for each item.

Attentional Regulation Five items from the Short Temperament Scale (STS;
Fullard et al. 1984) and one item from the Brief Infant Toddler Social-Emotional
Assessment (BITSEA; Briggs-Gowan et al. 2004) were used to represent attentional
regulation. Example items include: ‘child stays with a routine task for 5 min or
more’ and ‘can pay attention for a long time’. Parents responded on a 6-point scale
(almost never to almost always) for the STS items, and a 3-point scale (not true/
rarely to very true/often) for the BITSEA items. Higher scores indicate better
attentional regulation. CFA was used to assess whether the data confirmed a
measurement model for a single latent variable for attentional regulation with the
items again designated as categorical given the response scales had a maximum of

123
The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood… 81

Table 1 Sample demographics of selected and excluded participants

Demographic characteristics Sample Significance

Included Excluded
(n = 4007) (n = 1100)

Child characteristics % (n) v2 P

Female 49 (1965) 48 (532) .158 .358
Indigenous 3 (101) 12 (129) 170.10 \.000
Home language other than English 10 (384) 15 (168) 28.98 \.000
M (SD) F p
Age in months (at 2–3 years) 33.90 (2.88) 34.20 (3.14) .005
Age in months (at 6–7 years) 81.86 (3.48) 81.93 (3.71) \.000
Parent/family characteristics % (n) v2 P
Mother indigenous 2 (67) 9 (97) 142.37 \.000
Father indigenous 2 (65) *
Mother non-English speaking 14 (552) 21 (231) 34.70 \.000
background
Father non-English speaking 15 (590) *
background
M (SD) F p
Mother age (years at Wave 2) 33.70 (5.0) 31.50 (6.4) 114.09 \.000
Father age (years at Wave 2) 36.13 (5.9) *
Socio-economic position (Wave 2) -.33 (2.20) -2.93 (3.85) 833.00 \.000

* Data were unavailable for these demographic characteristics for fathers because fathers comprised most
of the excluded group (98%)

six points. The CFA measurement model fitted the data adequately (RMSEA = .08;
CFI = .98). Table 2 provides the factor loadings for each item.
Prosocial Skills were measured using the prosocial behaviour subscale from the
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ, Goodman 2001), completed by the
child’s teacher at Wave 4 of data collection, when children were 6–7 years old. The
SDQ is a 25-item inventory with five subscales: emotional symptoms, conduct
problems, hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems, and prosocial
behaviour. Informants rate how true/typical the statements reflect the child’s
behaviour across the last 6 months on a 3-point scale from not true to certainly true.
The prosocial subscale consists of five items with example items being ‘child is kind
to younger children’ and ‘child often volunteers to help others’. The SDQ has
received extensive psychometric evaluation across national contexts and exhibits
strong reliability and validity (Goodman 2001; Hawes and Dadds 2004). Higher
scores represent higher levels of prosocial behaviours. CFA was again used to assess
whether the data confirmed a measurement model for a single latent variable for
prosocial behaviour. The items were designated as categorical given the response
scale had only three points. The CFA measurement model fitted the data adequately
(RMSEA = .11; CFI = .99). Table 2 provides the factor loadings for each item.

123
82 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

Table 2 Self-regulation and prosocial items, standardised factor loadings, and item origins
Item b

Emotional regulation 2–3 years by parent report

Cries or tantrums until he/she is exhausted [reversed]a .56
Often gets very upset [reversed]a .48
b
This child responds to frustration intensely [reversed] .78
This child has moody ‘off’ days when he/she is irritable all day [reversed]b .62
This child shows much bodily movement when upset or crying [reversed]b .68
This child reacts strongly when unable to complete a play activity [reversed]b .67
Attentional regulation 2–3 years by parent report
Can pay attention for a long time (not including TV)a .47
This child plays continuously for more than 10 min at a time with a favourite toyb .68
This child goes back to the same activity after a brief interruptionb .63
This child stays with a routine task for 5 min or moreb .66
This child stops to examine objects thoroughly (5 min or more)b .59
This child practices a new skill for 10 min or moreb .68
Prosocial skills 6–7 years by teacher report
Is considerate of others’ feelingsc .85
Readily shares with other childrenc .79
Is helpful if someone is hurtc .88
Kind to younger childrenc .81
c
Often volunteers to help 73
a
Brief Infant Toddler Social-Emotional Assessment (BITSEA; Briggs-Gowan et al. 2004). 3-point scale:
0 = not true/rarely, 1 = somewhat true/sometimes, 2 = very true/often
b
Short Temperament Scale (STS; Fullard et al. 1984). 6-point scale: 1 = almost never to 6 = almost
always
c
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman 2001). 3-point scale: 0 = not true;
1 = somewhat true; 2 = certainly true

Parenting Measures for Mothers and Fathers

Composite scores for two parenting constructs were calculated using weighted CFA
factor coefficients published by experienced LSAC researchers (Zubrick et al.
2014). Score means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for internal
reliability are provided in Table 3.
Parental Warmth was assessed using six items from the Child Rearing
Questionnaire (Paterson and Sanson 1999) on which parents rated their expression
of physical affection and enjoyment of the child. Each item was rated on a 5-point
scale (never or almost never to always or almost always). Example items include:
‘How often do you express affection by hugging, kissing and holding this child?’
and ‘How often do you have warm, close times together with this child?’
Parental Hostility was measured using adapted items from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study of Children, Birth Cohort (National Center for Statistics 2004)

123
 Table 3 Descriptive statistics, scale internal reliability coefficients, and bivariate correlations among variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Emotional regulation 2–3 years

2. Attentional regulation 2–3 years .11*
3. Prosocial skills 6–7 years .16* .09*
4. Maternal warmth .12* .29* .04
5. Maternal hostility -.45* -.20* -.10* -.15*
6. Paternal warmth .09* .15* .03 .23* -.11*
7. Paternal hostility -.28* -.15* -.09* -.11* .38* -.24*
8. Socio-economic position .15* .01 .05* -.04 -.03 .03 -.05*
9. Child age at 2–3 years (months) -.02 .10* .03 -.04 .06* -.04 .05* -.00
10. Child age at 6–7 years (months) -.02 .09* .04 -.02 .04 -.04 .05* .01 .71*
The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood…

Cronbach’s alpha .74 .74 .82 .84 .84 .86 .84 NA NA NA

Mean – –‘ – 4.65 3.10 4.38 3.08 .04 33.95 81.97
Range 2.27–5 1–9.6 1–5 1–8.82 -4.29–3 27–46 73–93
SD .41 1.32 .53 1.37 .95 2.93 3.52

* Significant at p \ .01
– These scale scores are generated as latent variables within the analyses and no conventional mean scores for these scales are available
83

123
84 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

and the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth 1998–1999 (Statistics
Canada 1999). The scale consists of five items which are answered on a 10-point
semantic differential scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 10 = all of the time.
Example items are: In the past four weeks ‘I have lost my temper with this child’
and ‘I have raised my voice with or shouted at this child’.

Control Variables

A number of variables were included as covariates in the analyses to control for

demographic variability across families. These covariates were family socio-
economic position and children’s age in months. Socio-economic position is a
derived variable within the LSAC that combines parental occupational prestige,
parental education level, and household income. It has an approximate mean of zero
and standard deviation of one. It is strongly associated with other known indicators
of child and family outcomes which are influenced by socio-economic position
(Blakemore et al. 2009). The data for this measure were collected when children
were 2–3 years old. Given that child age in months varied substantially within the
data collection period for each wave for this cohort, we also examined child age (in
months) as a potential control variable for the final analytic models.

Approach to Analysis and Missing Data

Mplus Version 7.11 (Muthén and Muthén 1998–2012) was used to develop
structural equation models (SEM). Due to the manifest variables for the latent
variable measurement models of emotional and attentional regulation and prosocial
skills being designated as categorical, the weighted least squares mean variance
(WLSMV) estimator was used. Two models were examined: (1) a baseline model in
which the direct associations between parenting behaviours and children later
prosocial behaviour, and children’s early self-regulation and prosocial behaviour
were estimated; (2) an indirect effects model in which the indirect associations, via
self-regulation, for the associations between parenting behaviours and prosocial
behaviour were estimated. This model was assessed for the full sample and for a
multi-group model for boys and girls. Model fit was assessed using the root mean
squared error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI),
interpreted using Hu and Bentler’s recommendations (Hu and Bentler 1999;
RMSEA value \.05 and CFI value [.95). Models were assessed as adequate where
they met the criteria for at least one of the three fit statistics and good if they met
both criteria.
The amount of missing data varied across data collection waves and variables
ranging from 11% for parent-reported data at 2–3 years, 27% missing for teacher-
reported data at 6–7 years, and 39% missing for father-reported parenting data at
2–3 years. The data were considered missing at random (MAR) because it was
unlikely that the presence of a missing value was related to the response that would
have been provided (Enders 2010). We used MPlus to create 40 imputed data sets.
The results presented use the pooled results across the 40 data sets. This imputation

123
The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood… 85

strategy exceeds the number of data sets recommended for generation of imputed
values given the level of missing data (Graham et al. 2007).
The imputation model included all of the substantive and control variables
described above, along with child age in months at each wave, cultural background,
gender, infant irritability (parent-reported temperament measure from Wave 1 of
LSAC when children were aged birth to 1 year), child sociability at 2–3 years
(parent-reported temperament measure), and Wave 1 parent-reported maternal and
paternal warmth, hostility, and maternal mental health.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and correlations among all
variables are provided in Table 3. All correlations were in the expected directions.
Children’s emotional and attentional regulation at age 2–3 years were both
positively correlated with parenting warmth for mothers and fathers and later
prosocial skills, and negatively correlated with parental hostility for mothers and
fathers. Children’s prosocial skills at 6–7 years were negatively correlated with
maternal and paternal hostility but not significantly correlated with parental warmth.
In the interest of model parsimony for the structural models, covariates were
included only if there was a significant correlation between the control variables
(family socio-economic position or child age) and the substantive variables. In the
following models, we adjusted for the influence of socio-economic position on
emotional regulation, maternal and paternal hostility, and children’s prosocial skills.
We also adjusted for the influence of children’s age in months at 2–3 years on
attentional regulation and maternal and paternal hostility.

Research Questions 1 and 2: Model 1

1. Are there direct associations between parenting behaviours (warmth and
hostility) for mothers and fathers when children are 2–3 years of age and
children’s prosocial behaviours at 6–7 years?
2. Are there direct associations between self-regulation (emotional and attentional
regulation) at 2–3 years of age and children’s prosocial behaviours at
6–7 years?

Model 1 included all direct paths between the parenting variables and the self-
regulation variables, at 2–3 years, and prosocial skills, at 6–7 years, adjusted for
child age in months and socio-economic position, as previously described. The self-
regulation variables measured were correlated with each other, as were the
parenting measures. The model was a poor fit to the data (RMSEA = .07;
CFI = .85) and accounted for 5% of variance in prosocial skills. There were
significant but small associations between prosocial behaviour at 6–7 years and
measures taken at 2–3 years of emotional regulation (b = .15), attentional

123
86 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

regulation (b = .08), maternal hostility (b = -.07), and paternal hostility

(b = -.06). There were no significant direct associations between prosocial
behaviour and maternal or paternal warmth.
In relation to the covariates, children who were older in age (in months) at
2–3 years had, on average, higher attentional regulation at that age (b = .10.
p \ .00), and slightly higher levels of maternal (b = .05, p = .01) and paternal
hostility (b = .04, p = .04). Higher family socio-economic status was significantly
associated with lower levels of paternal hostility (b = -.05, p = .02), and higher
emotional regulation in children (b = .15, p \ .00), but was not significantly
associated with maternal hostility or prosocial skills. Therefore, these two paths
were not included in the subsequent models.

Research Questions 3 and 4: Model 2

3. Are there indirect associations between early parenting behaviours of mothers
and fathers (warmth and hostility) at 2–3 years and children’s prosocial
behaviour at 6–7 years, through children’s self-regulation at 2–3 years?
4. Do the developmental pathways involving early parenting behaviours of
mothers and fathers, children’s self-regulation skills, and later prosocial skills,
differ for boys and girls?

In Model 2, we tested a model that included all the direct paths from early parenting
to self-regulation, as well as regressing self-regulation and parenting on to prosocial
skills at 6–7 years. This model tested the role of self-regulation in the develop-
mental path between the parenting variables and prosocial behaviour. The
covariates of child age in months and socio-economic position were again included
in the model. The model testing the indirect associations between self-regulation
and prosocial behaviour was a good fit for the data (RMSEA = .04; CFI = .96).
This represents an improvement in model fit compared to the previous direct effects
model when comparing the CFI fits for each model (D CFI [.02; Cheung and
Rensvold 2002). The model accounted for 4% of the variance in predicting
prosocial skills.
We repeated the analysis of this model as a multi-group path model to explore the
extent to which the indirect parenting associations with prosocial skills, through
self-regulation, differed for boys and girls. This model was also a good fit to the data
(RMSEA = .03; CFI = .96). However, because Wald tests for sequentially
constrained paths across groups showed that there were no statistically significant
differences for the estimates for boys and girls and the estimates were highly similar
across the whole group and multi-group models, only the whole group model
estimates are presented (Fig. 1a, b).
In Fig. 1a, the estimates indicate that maternal and paternal parenting hostility
was associated with prosocial behaviour at 6–7 years only through an association
with emotional regulation, rather than directly. The negative coefficients between
the parenting hostility variables and emotional regulation show that higher levels of
parenting hostility were associated with lower levels of emotional regulation which
was in turn associated with poorer prosocial skills at 6–7 years. This indirect

123
The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood… 87

Fig. 1 Structural path model for indirect relations of early parenting hostility (a) and warmth (b) on later
prosocial skills through their influence on early emotional and attentional regulation. The complete model
that included both maternal and paternal measures was estimated with results shown here in two panels
for ease of reading. Fit indices: RMSEA = .03; CFI = .96. All estimates are standardised. * Estimates
are statistically significant at p \ .05; ** Estimates significant at p \ .01. Estimated but not shown here
are: correlations among the parenting variables and among the self-regulation variables; indicator
variables for the three latent variables as denoted by ovals; insignificant direct paths from parenting to
prosocial skills; and covariate relations. Covariate relations estimated were: socio-economic position in
relation to emotional regulation, maternal and paternal hostility, and children’s prosocial skills; and
children’s age in months at 2–3 years in relation to attentional regulation and maternal and paternal
hostility

association was stronger for maternal hostility than for paternal hostility. The
association between parenting hostility and prosocial behaviour at 6–7 years,
through an influence on attentional regulation, was similar but showed smaller
overall estimates. In Fig. 1b, the estimates indicate that maternal and paternal

123
88 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

parenting warmth had a positive association with prosocial skills at 6–7 years
through an association with attentional regulation, and to a lesser extent, emotional
regulation. In this indirect effects model, there were no longer significant direct
associations between parenting and prosocial behaviour.

Discussion

The present study explored associations between early maternal and paternal
parenting behaviours and self-regulation at 2–3 years, and prosocial behaviour at
6–7 years. Of particular interest, was whether relations between parenting and
prosocial behaviour were largely direct, or indirect through an influence on
emotional and attentional regulation. In a baseline model we found self-reported
parenting hostility, both for mothers and fathers, had a negative association with
later prosocial behaviour. However, there were no associations between self-
reported parenting warmth and prosocial behaviour.
In modelling the indirect associations between early parenting and later prosocial
behaviours through the pathways of emotional and attentional self-regulation, a
better fit for the data emerged. Parenting hostility for both mothers and fathers at
2–3 years was associated with poorer emotional and attentional regulation in
children. Maternal warmth was associated with positive attentional and emotional
regulation development, while paternal warmth was related to positive attentional
regulation, but not to emotional regulation. In turn, emotional and attentional
regulation skills at 2–3 years were associated with more positive prosocial skills in
children four years later. The stronger and more robust associations with parenting
hostility rather than warmth reflect recent cross-sectional work suggesting that the
absence of overly critical and hostile parenting is a highly salient consideration in
children’s self-regulatory development (Mathis and Bierman 2015). Overall, the
findings indicate the relative importance of self-regulation skills in the development
of prosocial behaviour, and the important role that parenting plays in this
developmental path.
Children of parents who reported higher frequencies of hostile parenting (e.g.,
frequencies in rates of losing their temper, raising their voice, feeling angry when
punishing a child), had poorer self-regulation, and these children had poorer
prosocial skills and the potential for other less optimal social-emotional develop-
mental outcomes. These parents were not likely to be modelling behaviours to
support children’s self-regulation and the high correlation between maternal and
paternal hostility provided some indication that these family environments would be
stressful home environments for children and for parents. While specific child or
family characteristics may have led to such negative parenting environments, these
were not explored in these analyses. This would be an important direction for future
research.
The findings of the current study suggest that parenting and self-regulatory
pathways to prosocial skill development are equally important for boys and girls and
that overall, maternal behaviours were more salient. However, what is important
about the models tested here is that because maternal and paternal behaviours were

123
The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood… 89

tested simultaneously, the estimates reflect the additional variance contributed by

each, controlling for the other. That is, controlling for maternal warmth and
hostility, paternal warmth and hostility explained additional variance in children’s
self-regulatory skills and subsequent prosocial skills. This suggests a unique and
beneficial contribution by fathers despite the stronger associations with maternal
parenting which may reflect the quantity of time mothers tend to spend with
children as the most likely primary caregiver at 2–3 years of age (at a population
level). The lack of gender differences in the developmental paths explored suggest
that emotional and attentional regulation are important precursors to prosocial skills
for both boys and girls, and the absence of hostile parenting is equally beneficial
across gender.

Parent-Driven and Child-Driven Effects

As in previous research (Razza and Raymond 2013; Taylor et al. 2015), the models
explored in these analyses assumed parent-driven influences on the development of
self-regulation and prosocial behaviour. Child-driven effects were not taken into
account. For example, children who do not develop expected capacities to self-
regulate their own behaviour by age 3 years may elevate the stress experienced by
one or both parents. When parents own psychological resources are stretched to
manage children’s emotional and attentional reactions then the family environment
may fail to be able to support the child sufficiently.
While there has been limited empirical investigation, particularly longitudinally,
that investigates child-driven effects on parenting, Eisenberg et al. (2010) found that
children’s effortful control (self-regulation) at 18 months and 3 years predicted
mother’s use of teaching strategies one year later, while mothers’ use of teaching
strategies with their child did not result in improved self-regulatory capacities for
the child. It would seem from these findings that mother’s prior knowledge of
children’s self-regulation skills came into play as mothers chose the strategies to use
with their child to be most appropriate for a given situation. Individual differences
in children’s self-regulation by age 3 years arise for a range of reasons that include
genetic and temperamental predispositions with recent research identifying specific
genetic bases associated with the development of self-regulation (Kochanska et al.
2009; Sheese et al. 2007). However, critical support from the social environment by
parents and other caregivers is still required in those circumstances.
Leaders in the parenting intervention field have proposed that positive and
responsive parenting requires high levels of self-regulation on the part of parents
(Sanders and Mazzucchelli 2013). The items that measured parenting hostility in
this study may reflect parents’ own capacity for self-regulation. These items asked
parents to rate how often they had lost their temper or raised their voice to a child.
Parental responses on such items might reflect the extent to which parents have the
capacity to emotionally regulate themselves. Parents with poor self-regulation skills
may pass on a genetic vulnerability to poor self-regulation to their children and may
also model behaviours indicative of poor self-regulation. For parenting interventions
to be effective the focus may need to be on parents’ own skills for self-regulation
(Sanders and Mazzucchelli 2013).

123
90 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

Strengths and Limitations of This Research

A strength of this research is the use of a large longitudinal data set of children
across Australia that enables some generalisation of the findings, bearing in mind
that the analytic sample did differ from the excluded sample with older mothers,
higher socio-economic position, and being less likely to be indigenous or to speak a
language other than English. The analysis also did not control for cultural status or
other contextual socio-demographic variables likely to relate to the developmental
paths involving parenting, self-regulation, and prosocial skills. Future research
should account for a broader range of these contextual variables. Additional
strengths of the study include the use of reliable and well-validated measures that
were employed in the LSAC study and the inclusion of reports on parenting from
mothers and fathers. Research studies often rely on a single parental respondent in
large survey studies, usually the mother. The findings do require replication in other
national and cultural contexts.
As noted above, there was less account taken in these analyses for child-driven
effects as a key influence on the development of prosocial behaviour. Transactional
models of development acknowledge the possibility that there are child-driven
effects on parenting as well as parent mental health (Pesonen et al. 2008; Sameroff
2010). It may be that children who show early prosocial and self-regulatory capacity
are able to elicit more positive parenting in their parents and children who are more
difficult because of temperament or health reasons make parenting more stressful.
This needs to be considered in future studies. Replication of the findings with
additional measures beyond parent report and teacher report, such as direct
assessment of childrens’ self-regulatory skills would also strengthen the evidence
base. Finally, the variance in prosocial skills explained by the models is low, even
while the findings provide evidence of the importance of the intervening role of self-
regulation in the associations between parenting behaviours and later prosocial
behaviour.

Implications

The findings of the current study suggest that parenting and family interventions
should aim to increase parents’ understanding of children’s early self-regulation as
the basis for improving later prosocial behaviours. Self-regulatory abilities are
critical skills for young children especially when they begin school, in order to be
able to focus their attention and engage positively with peers (Blair and Diamond
2008). Interventions that have simultaneously addressed parenting behaviour and
children’s self-regulation skills have been successful in improving school adjust-
ment for children, of which prosocial behaviour is of relevance, and also assisting in
promoting school engagement (Pears et al. 2015). Family interventions that have
included fathers have also shown positive effects on paternal positive parenting and
children’s social behaviours (Homem, et al. 2014). While early child temperamental
disposition is important, ultimately behaviour is also largely shaped by the external
environmental, and especially through family relationships. This makes efforts to
support these relationships within families particularly important.

123
The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood… 91

Conclusions

This research contributed increased understanding about the role of early parenting
and child self-regulation to children’s later prosocial behaviour. As new knowledge
emerges about the neurobiology of early childhood development, the crucial role of
the quality of parenting has become increasingly evident. The concern in the
findings in this research was the strength of the pathways from hostile parenting
behaviours through self-regulation to prosocial behavioural outcomes. For young
children, parenting responsiveness and non-hostile parenting is essential. It is
important for parent education efforts to support adult recognition of the signals that
young children send as well as communicating with children in ways that help
children regulate behaviours and emotions. Self-regulation is a key feature of
developmental change between infancy and childhood that relates to the voluntary
regulation of emotions, thoughts, and actions. This study and many others highlight
the important role that family context plays in shaping key developmental skills
such as self-regulation in children, with significant impacts across many domains
including prosocial behaviour. Policies and practices that aim to simultaneously
address parenting approaches and children’s self-regulatory capacity are likely to
have the most impact in ensuring positive school transitions and lifelong learning
and well-being outcomes for children.

Acknowledgements This paper uses unit record data from Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal
Study of Australian Children (LSAC). The study is conducted in partnership between the Department of
Social Services (DSS), the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), and the Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS). The findings and views reported in this paper are those of the authors and should not be
attributed to DSS, AIFS, or the ABS.

References
Baptista, J., Osoria, A., Martins, E. C., Castiajo, P., Barreto, A. L., Mateus, V., et al. (2016). Maternal and
paternal mental-state talk and executive function in preschool children. Social Development, 26,
129–145. doi:10.1111/sode.12183.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptu-
alization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127.
Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of
self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20(3),
899–911.
Blakemore, T., J., Gibbings, J., & Strazdins, L. (2009). Measurement of the socio-economic position of
families. Australian Social Policy, 2009, 121–168.
Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Carter, A. S., Irwin, J. R., Wachtel, K., & Cicchetti, D. V. (2004). The brief infant-
toddler social and emotional assessment: Screening for social-emotional problems and delays in
competence. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29(2), 143–155. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsh017.
Brownell, C. A., Svetlova, M., & Nichols, S. (2009). To share or not to share: When do toddlers respond
to another’s needs? Infancy, 14(1), 117–130.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.
Edwards, B. (2012). Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children—The first
decade of life. Family Matters, 91, 7–17.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In W. Damon & R. Lerner
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3,
pp. 646–702). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

123
92 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

Eisenberg, N., Vidmar, M., Spinrad, T. L., Eggum, N. D., Edwards, A., Gaertner, B., et al. (2010).
Mothers’ teaching strategies and children’s effortful control: A longitudinal study. Developmental
Psychology, 46(5), 1294–1308.
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guildford.
Ferreira, T., Cadmina, J., Matias, M., Vieira, J. M., Leal, T., & Matos, P. M. (2016). Preschool children’s
prosocial behaviour: The role of mother-child, father-child and teacher-child relationships. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 525, 1829–1839. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0369-x.
Fullard, W., McDevitt, S. C., & Carey, W. B. (1984). Assessing temperament in one- to three-year-old
children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 9(2), 205–217. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/9.2.205.
Geva, R., & Feldman, R. (2008). A neurobiological model for the effects of early brainstem functioning
on the development of behavior and emotion regulation in infants: Implications for prenatal and
perinatal risk. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(10), 1031–1041. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2008.01918.x.
Gialamas, A., Sawyer, A. C. P., Mittinty, M. N., Zubrick, S. R., Sawyer, M. G., & Lynch, J. (2014).
Quality of childcare influences children’s attentiveness and emotional regulation at school entry.
Journal of Pediatrics, 165(4), 813–819.
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(11), 1337–1345. doi:10.1097/
00004583-200111000-00015.
Graham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., & Gilreath, T. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed?
Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8(3), 206–213.
doi:10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9.
Gray, M., & Smart, D. (2009). Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children:
A valuable new data source for economists. The Australian Economic Review, 42, 367–376. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-8462.2009.00555.x.
Grazzani, I., Ornaghi, V., Agliati, A., & Brazzelli, E. (2016). How to foster toddlers’ mental-state talk,
emotion understanding, and prosocial behavior: A conversation-based intervention at nursery
school. Infancy, 21(2), 199–227. doi:10.1111/infa.12107.
Han, Z. R., Qian, J., Gao, M., & Dong, J. (2015). Emotion socialization mechanisms inking Chinese
fathers’, mothers’, and children’s emotion regulation: A moderated mediation model. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 24, 3570–3579. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0158-y.
Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Australian data and psychometric properties of the Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38(8), 644–651.
doi:10.1111/j.1440-1614.2004.01427.x.
Homem, T. C., Gaspar, M. F., Seabra-Santos, M. J., Canavarro, M. C., & Azevedo, A. (2014). A pilot
study with the Incredible Years parenting training: Does it work for fathers of preschoolers with
oppositional behavior symptoms? Fathering, 12(3), 262–282.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118.
Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., Prisco, T. R., & Adams, E. E. (2008). Mother–child and father–child mutually
responsive orientation in the first 2 years and children’s outcomes at preschool age: Mechanisms of
influence. Child Development, 79, 30–44.
Kochanska, G., Boldt, L. J., Kim, S., Yoon, J. E., & Philibert, R. A. (2015). Developmental interplay
between children’s biobehavioral risk and the parenting environment from toddler to early school
age: Prediction of socialization outcomes in preadolescence. Development and Psychopathology,
27(3), 775–790. doi:10.1017/S0954579414000777.
Kochanska, G., Philibert, R. A., & Barry, R. A. (2009). Interplay of genes and early mother-child
relationship in the development of self-regulation from toddler to preschool age. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(11), 1331–1338. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02050.x.
LaBounty, J., Wellman, H. M., Olson, S., Laguttuta, K., & Liu, D. (2008). Mothers’ and fathers’ use of
internal state talk with their young children. Social Development, 17, 767–775. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2007.00450.x.
Laible, D., Carlo, G., Murphy, T., Augustine, M., & Roesch, S. (2014). Predicting children’s prosocial
and co-operative behavior from their temperamental profiles: A person-centered approach. Social
Development, 23(4), 734–752. doi:10.1111/sode.12072.

123
The Development of Prosocial Behaviour in Early Childhood… 93

Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2006). Responsive parenting: Establishing early foundations
for social, communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Developmental Psychology,
42(4), 627–642. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.627.
Lombardi, J. (2012). The federal policy perspective: From neurons to neighborhoods anniversary: Ten
years later. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Martin, A., Ryan, R. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). When fathers’ supportiveness matters most: Maternal
and paternal parenting and children’s school readiness. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(2),
145–155. doi:10.1037/a0018073.
Mathis, E. T. B., & Bierman, K. L. (2015). Dimensions of parenting associated with child prekindergarten
emotion regulation and attention control in low-income families. Social Development, 24, 601–620.
doi:10.1111/sode.12112.
Meuwissen, A., & Englund, M. M. (2016). Executive function in at-risk children: Importance of father-
figure support and mother parenting. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 44, 72–80.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2016.04.002.
Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family
context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). MPlus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth cohort—9-
month restricted-use data files user’s manual. NCES 2004-093. Washington, DC: Author.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The
science of early childhood development. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood
Development, J. P. Shonkoff and D. A. Phillips, eds. Board on Children, Youth, and Families,
Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Paterson, G., & Sanson, A. (1999). The association of behavioural adjustment to temperament, parenting
and family characteristics among 5 year old children. Social Development, 8, 293–309.
Pears, K. C., Kim, H. K., Healey, C. V., Yoerger, K., & Fisher, P. A. (2015). Improving child self-
regulation and parenting in families of pre-kindergarten children with developmental disabilities and
behavioral difficulties. Prevention Science, 16(2), 222–232. doi:10.1007/s11121-014-0482-2.
Pesonen, A.-K., Räikkönen, K., Heinonen, K., Komsi, N., Järvenpää, A.-L., & Strandberg, T. (2008). A
transactional model of temperamental development: Evidence of a relationship between child
temperament and maternal stress over five years. Social Development, 17(2), 326–340. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9507.2007.00427.x.
Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K., Sheese, B. E., & Voelker, P. (2014). Developing attention: Behavioral and
brain mechanisms. Advances in Neuroscience. Article ID 405094 (9 pages). doi:10.1155/2014/
405094.
Raver, C. C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s emotional
development for early school readiness. Social Policy Report, 16(3), 3–19.
Razza, R. A., & Raymond, K. (2013). Associations among maternal behavior, delay of gratification, and
school readiness across the early childhood years. Social Development, 22(1), 180–196. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00665.x.
Roger, K. M., Rinaldi, C. M., & Howe, N. (2012). Mothers’ and fathers’ internal state language with their
young children: An examination of gender differences during an emotions task. Infant and Child
Development, 21, 646–666. doi:10.1002/icd.1762.
Rothbart, M. K., Sheese, B. E., Rueda, M. R., & Posner, M. I. (2011). Developing mechanisms of self-
regulation in early life. Emotion Review, 3(2), 207–213. doi:10.1177/1754073910387943.
Sameroff, A. J. (2010). A unified theory of development: a dialectic integration of nature and nurture.
Child Development, 81(1), 6–22.
Sanders, M. R., & Mazzucchelli, T. G. (2013). The promotion of self-regulation through parenting
interventions. Clinical Child Family Psychology Review, 16(1), 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10567-013-
0129-z.
Sheese, B. E., Voelker, P. M., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (2007). Parenting quality interacts with
genetic variation in dopamine receptor D4 to influence temperament in early childhood.
Development and Psychopathology, 19(4), 1039–1046.

123
94 K. E. Williams, D. Berthelsen

Shonkoff, J. P., & Bales, S. N. (2011). Science does not speak for itself: Translating child development
research for the public and its policymakers. Child Development, 82(1), 17–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2010.01538.x.
Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I., Earls, M. F., McGuinn, L., et al. (2012). The
lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232–e246. doi:10.
1542/peds.2011-2663.
Soloff, C., Lawrence, D., & Johnstone, R. (2005). LSAC technical paper no. 1: Sample design. Retrieved
from http://www.aifs.gov.au/growingup/pubs/technical/tp1.pdf.
Statistics Canada (1999). National Longitudinal Survey of Children & Youth Cycle 3 Survey Instruments
1998 – 99. Book 1 – Parent & Child. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/
instrument/4450_Q2_V2-eng.pdf.
Taylor, Z. E., Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2015). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia, effortful control, and
parenting as predictors of children’s sympathy across early childhood. Developmental Psychology,
51(1), 17–25. doi:10.1037/a0038189.
Taylor, Z., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T., Eggum, N., & Sulik, M. (2013). The relations of ego-resiliency and
emotion socialization to the development of empathy and prosocial behavior across early childhood.
Emotion (5). 13, 822–831. doi:10.1037/a0032894.
Williams, K. E., Berthelsen, D., Walker, S., & Nicholson, J. M. (2017). A developmental cascade model
of behavioral sleep problems and emotional and attentional self-regulation across early childhood.
Behavioral Sleep Medicine, 15(1), 1–21. doi:10.1080/15402002.2015.1065410.
Williams, K. E., White, S. L. J., & MacDonald, A. (2016). Early mathematics achievement of boys and
girls: Do differences in early self-regulation pathways explain later achievement? Learning and
Individual Differences, 51, 199–209.
Zubrick, S., Lucas, N., Westrupp, E., & Nicholson, J. (2014). Parenting measures in the Longitudinal
Study of Australian Children (LSAC): construct validity and measures quality, Waves 1 to 4. LSAC
Technical Paper No. 12. Available from http://growingupinaustralia.gov.au/pubs/technical/index.
html.

123
International Journal of Early Childhood is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights
Reserved.